Hi! I’d just like to go on record here and now to announce to you and the
world that I am… Batman.
Alright, everyone calm down. I know the majority of you already want
autographs, and the paparazzi are rolling up even now for photographs. But
maybe some of you are skeptics. Some of you might doubt my claim. Okay, fine.
Let me just ask you this: Have you ever seen Batman and me at the same time in
the same place?
Yeah, that’s what I thought. I rest my case, I am Batman.
Silly, right? And I am joking with all of that, but my joke (like most
jokes) is done with the attempt to pursue a reaction or to prove a point. The
point I’d like to make is that circular reasoning is not foolproof. We can go
round-and-round saying that I’m Batman and that since you’ve never seen us
simultaneously my argument is a valid one.
Circular reasoning is an argument one tries to prove valid on its own
claims. In a sense it’s going about in circles. It doesn’t always work. But it
can work. We use circular reasoning a
lot more than we think. For example, if we wanted to prove the merits of
science we would have to reference science. If I want to praise the benefits of
a certain meal I would compare or contrast it to other meals. A movie is judged
according to other movies in the film industry.
Maybe poets can wax eloquent and create abstract comparisons (metaphors,
etc.) to address something likened to something else. But most of us adopt
circular reasoning in our arguments. And the truth of the matter is no one
really seems to mind…
…until it comes to the Bible.
For some reason the Bible is off limits from circular reasoning. We are
told that we are not allowed to use the Bible to prove the Bible. But we never
hear a scientist being told not to use science to prove (or disprove) science.
A chef is never told not to cook or reference condiments, meals, taste, and
other culinary experiences. That’d be ludicrous!
Yet when it comes to the Bible circular reasoning is off limits. And to
make matters worse, is that we believe the critics and back down. So let me
ask: How do you prove the Bible without using the Bible?
Without our Bibles, we lose most of our understanding of who God is, what
salvation means, and so much more. Yes, nature proclaims the glory of God. I’m
not denying that nature may be a good teacher, but I will affirm that nature is
an insufficient teacher.
But to prove the Bible (its inerrancy, its authority, its historicity,
etc.) without the Bible leaves us in a fuddled mess. We are bewildered with
what to do next. And we leave others confused too. But we needn’t cower before
our critics. An argument with circular reasoning is not always an invalid one.
We don’t deny that sometimes it’s not the best argument, but neither is it moot.
In fact, it is a valid one in our case and we have every right to use it.
Come back next week to see how we can best use circular reasoning to prove
the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible.